Is Colorblindness Possible?
Posted by Brant Russell on 5/19/2009
The other night at a post-show discussion for The Tempest, a man, the only African-American person who’s stayed for a Tempest discussion of mine so far, mentioned that the black friends with whom he attended were offended by the portrayal of black people in the play.
He said that he wasn’t personally offended, and that his friends were still trying to parse out their own feelings as they left the theater. But he wanted to stay for the discussion to talk it through.
The topic hadn’t yet come up in my discussions, and I found myself at a bit of a loss. We talked for a bit, others weighed in, and then we moved on. But we developed a set of very interesting questions. I’d love your thoughts.
Should an actor’s skin color matter? And whether it should or it shouldn’t, is its salience unavoidable?
Tina, when casting the play, looked at the ensemble and thought about who might be best for each role. Skin color was not a factor in these decisions. (Nor was gender: Lois Smith, Tina decided, was the actor best suited for Gonzalo.) But for a play that is about how people are bound to one another, about a man who commands the servitude of others, who finds himself in a foreign land and coerces its natives to do his bidding, is it possible to look past – or to not see – skin color?
The four roles played by black actors are Miranda, Caliban, Ariel, and Antonio. All of these characters are, in some way or another, bound to Prospero. Miranda, his daughter, is his ward, his responsibility, and by the end of the play he has married her off to a prince. Caliban, a native of the island, is kept chained (though not without good reason – he tried to rape Miranda after she taught him language, and he does, after all, scheme to murder Prospero). Ariel, a spirit, is the primary subcontractor for Prospero’s magic, and indentured until set free. Antonio, Prospero’s brother, is bound by Prospero’s emotions. Prospero’s anger and need for revenge brings Antonio to the island at the beginning of the play, and Prospero’s forgiveness tortures him at the end. Does the thematic connections between these characters (that is, if I’m not reading too much into it) beg some kind of interpretation when one considers that they are played by the company’s black actors?
In the discussion I mentioned, it never once came up that Prospero, played by a white actor, apparently has a black daughter and brother. “Believability” doesn’t seem to be an issue. Should it be? (What about Phylicia Rashad in August?) If we’re sophisticated enough to look past – or to not see – skin color when it comes to logistics, shouldn’t we do the same when it comes to thematics? Are theme and plot parallel?
For whatever it’s worth, I’m still mulling this over. My opinions at this point are pretty unnuanced, but I guess I think that every audience member’s experience is the product of a different alchemy. For me, The Play is what happens in the space between the actors onstage and the mind of the viewer – it’s what happens when the event’s ephemeral bursts of information are received and incorporated into a lifetime of experience. And for that reason, every interpretation is valid, and every reading is justifiable. During post-show discussions, people often begin questions with “What is the significance of…?” or “What did it mean when…?” I am always tempted to answer those questions with another question – What was its significance to you? What did it mean to you? Because whatever you think it means, that’s what it means. If your unique set of experience and knowledge renders the actors’ skin color significant, then it’s significant. You could perceive a performance as a comedy, and the audience member sitting next to you could perceive the very same performance as a tragedy.
Maybe it shouldn’t matter. Maybe we should be at the point where we don’t notice an actor’s skin color. But is colorblindness possible? Or desirable? Racism is the national sickness, and race can be one of the most salient features of our interpersonal relationships. So in some ways, maybe we’re always talking about race. Maybe our sickness is so deep that it infects our every action. What a tragedy.
May 19th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I am Black,male and an actor.We are about to begin rehearsals of Stephen Adley Guirgis’ play “The Last Days of Judas Iscariot” with not only color-blind casting, but some gender crossing as well. I imagine that this will raise some hackles and concerns, but a part of theatre’s purpose is to be provocative and forward thinking.
Outside of the artistic community, I find many times too many people wear their sensitivities like a too bright jacket and don’t allow for the imagination to take hold , express, and flourish.
I recently saw a college production of ” The Tempest” which had similar casting choices as yours and the production was quite good. The one notable difference was the reaction…there was no adverse feedback.
Please continue to cast according to what serves the story.
May 19th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
The idea of “offense” is certainly a tricky one. I can easily see Caliban and Ariel as having been cast as slaves and how race may have been a factor. Whether conscious or not is another question. But is it then more easy for us (all races in our society) to see the shipmates who find and conspire with Caliban as merely dim fools because of their skin color. I’m a middle class white male and that affects my perceptions. But media and society in general affect everyone’s perceptions; those are influences that we all share. What we don’t share are our experiences.
In the sense that art intends to stir emotions, I’m not sure colorblindness is possible. It may not even be desirable. Casting contrary to stereotypes may be more positive that ignoring them.
May 19th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
A successful, truly colorblind production would be one that you could do with an entire cast of one race, an entire cast of multiple races or with only a few of one particular race and it would have little to no thematic impact. I think Shakespeare’s plays - with some exceptions - are plays where you can do this successfully. Someone told me about a relatively recent production of “Romeo and Juliet” where an actor asked the director if his white character, Lord Capulet, had adopted his black daughter, Juliet. The director’s response was something along the lines of, “I’d like to think we’re beyond having to make that justification.”
But what do you do in plays where race plays a thematic role? Could you successfully use colorblind casting in “Of Mice and Men”? I don’t really think you could. Even in Shakespeare, could you use colorblind casting in “Othello”? I mean, truly colorblind casting? What do you do in plays written to be set in a particular era with characters of a particular class where race does play some silent role. Could you do color blind casting of “The Dining Room”?
Sometimes the thematic impact is irrelevant and can easily be dismissed, but in some cases, it can be jarring. You end up watching characters saying a lot of lines that you would think shouldn’t be coming out of their mouth. This means that the play itself is not colorblind. It will be interesting to see the thematic impact of having Phylicia Rashad play Violet in “August: Osage County”… if there is one, and I think there might be.
In this production of “The Tempest” the black men are a servant, a slave and a villain. In this case, it seems that the casting choices introduce a racial element where one did not exist before. Many may not see that element, but, as you say, people have their histories and values and these inform their experience of a play. Is that tragic? Eh, it’s human nature.
Maybe, rather than being simply colorblind, we should be color-aware. Aware of when we can say, “this does not need to be justified,” and when we need to tread carefully in our colorblindness.
.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
The term “color-aware” is precisely where I think we should be. As an Black actress, I hope to be cast in roles where my skin color does not bring elements of the script into question. However, I can understand that the sensitivities to our history in this country can make one hyper-aware to a situation like the casting of “The Tempest”. Had I seen this production, I would have questioned the casting as well and possibly been offended by it. However, I probably would have questioned as to whether it had been done to make a statement on/reminder of our history and why.
I recently saw a production of “Cabaret” in which a young Black man sang the lead on “Tomorrow Belongs to Me”. It was jarring to me and exactly a case where I felt color mattered. Perhaps the director was making a statement on our new administration and the hope that some people feel as a result. I don’t know. But I do know that the casting totally took me out of the piece in a negative way.
Our industry should be open to performers of all shapes, sizes, colors and genders. We should be willing to push boundaries and challenge ourselves and our audience while being aware of the effect those decisions may have.
May 20th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
When I saw the show, I wondered if the director had given much thought to the story she was telling by casting black actors in those roles. Then I thought of course she has. This is Steppenwolf and the directors here take purposeful risks that are, more often than not, rewarding for the audience. But when Ariel expressed his frustration with Prospero by doing a short minstrel jig, I was appalled by just how much it had been considered. In otherwords, the director and actor clearly recognized implications of the casting choices and then the production all but patted itself on the back for being so witty. I agree with the earlier post, the production created a race issue where one did not exist before. A black person who goes to see a Shakespeare play where the racial tensions are purposefully enhanced through casting choices doesn’t need it to be spelled out to them. It’s condescending and though the production was good, I was dissappointed by this inconsiderate choice.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:17 am
The director made several inconsistent choices that broke the play’s spell.
At first I felt the non-traditional casting choices were made without commentary on racial issues however I have to agree with Nakrya above that the minstrel jig competely changed that for me. All of a sudden I began to see Ariel’s entire performance within the context of minstrel show and the “performance of identity” . . . what did the use of “hip-hop/R&B” music mean now? What did it mean to have an Andre 3000-esque Ariel? And for Miranda to approach indoctrination to the spirit world by “hip hop” dancing with her new white boyfriend?
While I felt the cast was solid (only a few stumbled with the language) and while I was excited by several of the design ideas in print . . . however in practice the show overall lacked cohesion. For me the “drunkard world” was vastly more exciting, dangerous and magical than the spirit world . . . which raises serious doubts about the vision behind this production.
May 22nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I think Brendan Averett is on to something.
Lately I’ve been pondering a corollary to the colorblind-casting question. When Steppenwolf did “Harriet Jacobs” a while back, all of the characters–slaves, former slaves, and slaveowners–were played by black actors. I was surprised by the choice, but as the show progressed I found it remarkably effective. By removing the most glaring “us” vs. “them” demarcation, they forced the audience to observe invidual people rather than representatives of a larger group. A patron of Babes With Blades’ all-female “Macbeth” had a similar reaction to our removal of gender demarcations. Is it fair, then, to say that preventing us from categorizing characters can sometimes allow us to humanize them? Can it remove a distraction and allow us to engage with them on a more personal basis? Conversely, can non-traditional/colorblind casting sometimes undermine its own egalitarian intentions by calling attention to race or gender, especially if such casting decisions are publicized as a selling point? Does it inherently invite the audience to read intentions into the production? How do we identify the circumstances in which non-traditional/colorblind casting is an asset vs. a distraction?
(Full disclosure: I am a pasty-white actress and a company member at Babes With Blades; here I am speaking only for myself and not for the company. I have not seen this production of The Tempest.)